- #1

- 176

- 0

I don't know how to solve this...

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter endeavor
- Start date

- #1

- 176

- 0

I don't know how to solve this...

- #2

daniel_i_l

Gold Member

- 867

- 0

also, I'm not sure that I understand the case, the length of the rod is moving through the field and the field is going from one end of the rod to the other? In that case there would be no induction, for there to be induction there has to be a field that makes a right angle with the length of the rod.

- #3

- 176

- 0

Oh, is this refering to the metal rod that moves on a metal frame so that the area inside the loop of the frame changes? My book has one example of that, and the equation is emf = -BLv.

If that's the case, then since the flux doesn't change because the field is parallel, then the induced emf is 0.

- #4

Hootenanny

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 9,621

- 6

A rod is basically a thin cylinder, that is a cylinder with a length but no radius. This page may be useful for you... http://www.iop.org/Our_Activities/Schools_and_Colleges/Teaching_Resources/Teaching%20Advanced%20Physics/Fields/Electromagnetism/page_4817.html [Broken]endeavor said:

Oh, is this refering to the metal rod that moves on a metal frame so that the area inside the loop of the frame changes? My book has one example of that, and the equation is emf = -BLv.

If that's the case, then since the flux doesn't change because the field is parallel, then the induced emf is 0.

Your equation is correct by the way but your conclusions are not

Last edited by a moderator:

- #5

- 176

- 0

I found out that the answer is 0... but since my conclusions are wrong, I don't know how this answer has been derived.Hootenanny said:Your equation is correct by the way but your conclusions are not

- #6

Hootenanny

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 9,621

- 6

Ahh my apologies, your conclusion is correct I didn't see the 'endeavor said:I found out that the answer is 0... but since my conclusions are wrong, I don't know how this answer has been derived.

- #7

- 176

- 0

Oh Okay, thanks for the help anyway.Hootenanny said:Ahh my apologies, your conclusion is correct I didn't see the 'parallel' bit

Share:

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 2K